W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [selectors4] :not and :matches specificity (was :not(a, b) vs. :not(a):not(b)

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:56:41 -0700
Message-ID: <516EFE79.5050503@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/17/2013 12:43 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 03/19/2013 05:43 PM, Peter Moulder wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 02:34:39PM +0100, Simon Sapin wrote:
>>> Le 19/03/2013 14:14, Peter Moulder a écrit :
>>
>>>> ...
>>
>>>> There's an issue open as to whether the specificity of :matches should change
>>> >from max specificity to something else, though that issue was raised before
>>>> :not was changed to take a selector list, so there isn't yet a corresponding
>>>> proposal as to how or whether the specificity of :not(a, b) might change if
>>>> that proposal for :matches(a, b) were to be adopted.
>>
>> Possibilities include:
>>
>>    1. Keeping as max (which would then become the only selector to use max).
>>
>>    2. Same specificity as a pseudo-class.
>>
>>    3. change to sum, so that :not(a, b) would in fact have the same specificity
>>       as :not(a):not(b).
>>
>>    4. Drop the list argument feature of :not.

Also, #1 makes simple and straightforward things like
   :matches(em, strong)
and
   :not(em, strong)
behave the same.

In both cases, you're taking the max specificity of one of the arguments.
Just for :not() all of the arguments "match", whereas for :matches() only
some of them do.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 19:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 17 April 2013 19:57:12 UTC